3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality
Background: Effective communication is crucial for broad acceptance and applicability of alternative methods in 3R biomedical research and preclinical testing. 3D bioprinting is used to construct intricate biological structures towards functional liver models, specifically engineered for deployment...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2024-06-01
|
| Series: | Materials Today Bio |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590006424000504 |
| _version_ | 1797248252184100864 |
|---|---|
| author | Ahmed S.M. Ali Dongwei Wu Alexandra Bannach-Brown Diyal Dhamrait Johanna Berg Beatrice Tolksdorf Dajana Lichtenstein Corinna Dressler Albert Braeuning Jens Kurreck Maren Hülsemann |
| author_facet | Ahmed S.M. Ali Dongwei Wu Alexandra Bannach-Brown Diyal Dhamrait Johanna Berg Beatrice Tolksdorf Dajana Lichtenstein Corinna Dressler Albert Braeuning Jens Kurreck Maren Hülsemann |
| author_sort | Ahmed S.M. Ali |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background: Effective communication is crucial for broad acceptance and applicability of alternative methods in 3R biomedical research and preclinical testing. 3D bioprinting is used to construct intricate biological structures towards functional liver models, specifically engineered for deployment as alternative models in drug screening, toxicological investigations, and tissue engineering. Despite a growing number of reviews in this emerging field, a comprehensive study, systematically assessing practices and reporting quality for bioprinted liver models is missing. Methods: In this systematic scoping review we systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and BioRxiv for studies published prior to June 2nd, 2022. We extracted data on methodological conduct, applied bioinks, the composition of the printed model, performed experiments and model applications. Records were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from included articles by two independent reviewers from a panel of seven domain experts specializing in bioprinting and liver biology. We used RAYYAN for the screening process and SyRF for data extraction. We used R for data analysis, and R and Graphpad PRISM for visualization. Results: Through our systematic database search we identified 1042 records, from which 63 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this systematic scoping review. Our findings revealed that extrusion-based printing, in conjunction with bioinks composed of natural components, emerged as the predominant printing technique in the bioprinting of liver models. Notably, the HepG2 hepatoma cell line was the most frequently employed liver cell type, despite acknowledged limitations. Furthermore, 51% of the printed models featured co-cultures with non-parenchymal cells to enhance their complexity. The included studies offered a variety of techniques for characterizing these liver models, with their primary application predominantly focused on toxicity testing. Among the frequently analyzed liver markers, albumin and urea stood out. Additionally, Cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms, primarily CYP3A and CYP1A, were assessed, and select studies employed nuclear receptor agonists to induce CYP activity. Conclusion: Our systematic scoping review offers an evidence-based overview and evaluation of the current state of research on bioprinted liver models, representing a promising and innovative technology for creating alternative organ models. We conducted a thorough examination of both the methodological and technical facets of model development and scrutinized the reporting quality within the realm of bioprinted liver models. This systematic scoping review can serve as a valuable template for systematically evaluating the progress of organ model development in various other domains. The transparently derived evidence presented here can provide essential support to the research community, facilitating the adaptation of technological advancements, the establishment of standards, and the enhancement of model robustness. This is particularly crucial as we work toward the long-term objective of establishing new approach methods as reliable alternatives to animal testing, with extensive and versatile applications. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-24T20:11:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-05f4e10abd16459a862236c8c2292b50 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2590-0064 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-24T20:11:38Z |
| publishDate | 2024-06-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Materials Today Bio |
| spelling | doaj.art-05f4e10abd16459a862236c8c2292b502024-03-23T06:25:46ZengElsevierMaterials Today Bio2590-00642024-06-01261009913D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting qualityAhmed S.M. Ali0Dongwei Wu1Alexandra Bannach-Brown2Diyal Dhamrait3Johanna Berg4Beatrice Tolksdorf5Dajana Lichtenstein6Corinna Dressler7Albert Braeuning8Jens Kurreck9Maren Hülsemann10Department of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, GermanyBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, GermanyBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, GermanyGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department Food Safety, Berlin, GermanyCharité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Medical Library, GermanyGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Department Food Safety, Berlin, GermanyDepartment of Applied Biochemistry, Institute of Biotechnology, Technische Universität Berlin, GermanyBerlin Institute of Health (BIH) @Charité, QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin, Germany; Corresponding author.Background: Effective communication is crucial for broad acceptance and applicability of alternative methods in 3R biomedical research and preclinical testing. 3D bioprinting is used to construct intricate biological structures towards functional liver models, specifically engineered for deployment as alternative models in drug screening, toxicological investigations, and tissue engineering. Despite a growing number of reviews in this emerging field, a comprehensive study, systematically assessing practices and reporting quality for bioprinted liver models is missing. Methods: In this systematic scoping review we systematically searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid) and BioRxiv for studies published prior to June 2nd, 2022. We extracted data on methodological conduct, applied bioinks, the composition of the printed model, performed experiments and model applications. Records were screened for eligibility and data were extracted from included articles by two independent reviewers from a panel of seven domain experts specializing in bioprinting and liver biology. We used RAYYAN for the screening process and SyRF for data extraction. We used R for data analysis, and R and Graphpad PRISM for visualization. Results: Through our systematic database search we identified 1042 records, from which 63 met the eligibility criteria for inclusion in this systematic scoping review. Our findings revealed that extrusion-based printing, in conjunction with bioinks composed of natural components, emerged as the predominant printing technique in the bioprinting of liver models. Notably, the HepG2 hepatoma cell line was the most frequently employed liver cell type, despite acknowledged limitations. Furthermore, 51% of the printed models featured co-cultures with non-parenchymal cells to enhance their complexity. The included studies offered a variety of techniques for characterizing these liver models, with their primary application predominantly focused on toxicity testing. Among the frequently analyzed liver markers, albumin and urea stood out. Additionally, Cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms, primarily CYP3A and CYP1A, were assessed, and select studies employed nuclear receptor agonists to induce CYP activity. Conclusion: Our systematic scoping review offers an evidence-based overview and evaluation of the current state of research on bioprinted liver models, representing a promising and innovative technology for creating alternative organ models. We conducted a thorough examination of both the methodological and technical facets of model development and scrutinized the reporting quality within the realm of bioprinted liver models. This systematic scoping review can serve as a valuable template for systematically evaluating the progress of organ model development in various other domains. The transparently derived evidence presented here can provide essential support to the research community, facilitating the adaptation of technological advancements, the establishment of standards, and the enhancement of model robustness. This is particularly crucial as we work toward the long-term objective of establishing new approach methods as reliable alternatives to animal testing, with extensive and versatile applications.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S25900064240005043D bioprintingBioinkHepatocytesHepG2Xeno-free3R |
| spellingShingle | Ahmed S.M. Ali Dongwei Wu Alexandra Bannach-Brown Diyal Dhamrait Johanna Berg Beatrice Tolksdorf Dajana Lichtenstein Corinna Dressler Albert Braeuning Jens Kurreck Maren Hülsemann 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality Materials Today Bio 3D bioprinting Bioink Hepatocytes HepG2 Xeno-free 3R |
| title | 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality |
| title_full | 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality |
| title_fullStr | 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality |
| title_full_unstemmed | 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality |
| title_short | 3D bioprinting of liver models: A systematic scoping review of methods, bioinks, and reporting quality |
| title_sort | 3d bioprinting of liver models a systematic scoping review of methods bioinks and reporting quality |
| topic | 3D bioprinting Bioink Hepatocytes HepG2 Xeno-free 3R |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590006424000504 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT ahmedsmali 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT dongweiwu 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT alexandrabannachbrown 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT diyaldhamrait 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT johannaberg 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT beatricetolksdorf 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT dajanalichtenstein 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT corinnadressler 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT albertbraeuning 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT jenskurreck 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality AT marenhulsemann 3dbioprintingoflivermodelsasystematicscopingreviewofmethodsbioinksandreportingquality |